Agenda of City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 4

23/10/2019

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 4:00 pm in the Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Denison (Chairman)

Lord Mayor Reynolds

Zucco

Briscoe

Behrakis

NON-MEMBERS

Deputy Lord Mayor Burnet

Sexton

Thomas

Harvey

Dutta

Ewin

Sherlock

Apologies:

Leave of Absence:

Alderman M Zucco.

Alderman J R Briscoe.

1. Co-Option of a Committee Member in the event of a vacancy

2. Confirmation of Minutes

The minutes of the Open Portion of the City Infrastructure Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 25 September 2019, are submitted for confirming as an accurate record.

3. Consideration of Supplementary Items

Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(6) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

Recommendation

That the Committee resolve to deal with any supplementary items not appearing on the agenda, as reported by the General Manager.

4. Indications of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest

Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(7) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

Members of the Committee are requested to indicate where they may have any pecuniary or conflict of interest in respect to any matter appearing on the agenda, or any supplementary item to the agenda, which the Committee has resolved to deal with.

5. Transfer of Agenda Items

Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

A Committee may close a part of a meeting to the public where a matter to be discussed falls within 15(2) of the above regulations.

In the event that the Committee transfer an item to the closed portion, the reasons for doing so should be stated.

Are there any items which should be transferred from this agenda to the closed portion of the agenda, or from the closed to the open portion of the agenda?

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 16

23/10/2019

REPORT TITLE: 454-462 Churchill Avenue, Sandy Bay - Shared Access

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Roads and Environmental Engineering

Director City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of the report is to:

1.1.1. Present a proposal to undertake minor road improvement works to the shared vehicle access that serves the properties identified as 454-462 Churchill Avenue, Sandy Bay.

1.1.2. Provide information and comment on the residents’ feedback to the proposed road improvement works.

1.1.3. Present recommendations as the basis upon which to resolve this long standing issue.

1.2. The proposed road improvement works will provide the following community benefits:

1.2.1. Road and pedestrian safety improvements for the abutting residents’ of 454-462 Churchill Avenue, Sandy Bay including visitors to these properties

1.2.2. Improved ingress, egress and assist with the turning manoeuvres for property owners and visitors that utilise this section of Churchill Avenue.

2. Report Summary

2.1. In 2012/13 City Officers undertook investigations to improve the shared access that serves 454-462 Churchill Avenue, Sandy Bay. The conclusions from this exhaustive design work found it was not feasible to undertake any significant level modifications to the shared access due to the fixed level constraints at the top and bottom of the shared access

2.2. However, following significant engagement with the property owners, there are now works that can be carried out to improve the shared access. These works include:

2.2.1. Application of a skid resistance product (calcined bauxite) on the steep section of the shared access to improve grip for both vehicles and pedestrians.

2.2.2. Construction of small concrete hardstand area within the City’s highway reservation and adjacent to 462 Churchill Avenue to provide additional manoeuvring space at the top of the shared access for vehicle movements.

2.2.3. The concrete hard stand area will also allow for the placement of rubbish bins for collection. This will replace the grassed area where the bins have always been placed.

2.2.4. Installation of some flexible bollards and a small 200mm high retaining wall near the access to 454 Churchill Avenue to assist drivers to locate the inside edge of this very steep driveway, and also improve the cross fall of the driveway into 454 Churchill Avenue.

2.3. Consultation with the abutting residents who use the shared access found that the majority (3 of the 4 residents) support the City’s proposal to construct a concrete hardstand for vehicle manoeuvring adjacent to 462 Churchill Avenue.

2.4. The owners of 462 Churchill Avenue have contested this proposal on the basis that it will be an encroachment upon an area they consider should be available for their use as a “backyard” and will have a negative impact upon their family.

2.5. The owners of 462 Churchill Avenue engaged local consultant Pitt & Sherry, to provide alternative proposal for additional turning hardstand space at the top of the shared access.

2.6. Alternatives proposed by Pitt & Sherry with the latest plan includes:

2.6.1. Relocation of the existing driveway and a new hardstand area adjacent to 462 Churchill Avenue.

2.6.2. The granting of occupation license on public highway to allow the extension of the property boundary and installation of fencing and gate over this land.

2.7. City Officers hold concerns with Pitt & Sherry’s alternative proposal.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The report titled ‘454-462 Churchill Avenue, Sandy Bay - Shared Access’ be received and noted.

2. The following works be implemented on the shared access servicing 454 to 462 Churchill Avenue, Sandy Bay:

(i) Installation of a skid/slip resistant surface on the shared access;

(ii) Construction of a small (~16m²) area of concrete hardstand within the road reservation opposite the driveways to 454 and 456 Churchill Avenue to provide extra turning/manoeuvring area for vehicles at the top of the shared access;

(iii) Removal of steps leading into 462 located within the highway reservation;

(iv) Installation of traffic markers (flexible bollards) near the driveway entrance to 454 Churchill Avenue to assist drivers when manoeuvring in and out of this driveway; and

(v) Installation of a small 200mm high retaining structure at the edge of driveway and minor regrading of the driveway entrance to 454 Churchill Avenue to provide some improvement to the cross fall of the driveway.

3. Further detailed design to be carried out for construction documentation.

4. No fencing or gate to be approved within the road reservation at rear of 462 Churchill Avenue.

5. The costs associated with the proposal, estimated at $90,000 be funded from the City’s Road Strategy and Projects Budget Function within the 2019-20 Annual Plan.

6. The owners of 454, 456, 458-460, and 462 to be notified of Council resolution.

4. Background

4.1. The shared access that services properties 454-462 Churchill Avenue, Sandy Bay is designated on the Council’s Statutory Map as a public highway maintainable by the City.

As such, the City has a level of responsibility for the on-going maintenance of its public highway, although its function is essentially a shared driveway serving the four properties in question.

4.2. It is noted that there are at least two other similar shared road accesses (spurs) on the top side of Churchill Avenue that are also designated as public highway.

These shared accesses were created and dedicated as public highway as part of the land sub-division process undertaken in the early 1970’s.

4.3. The issues relating to the access serving 454-462 Churchill Avenue were first identified in 2012/13.

4.4. In particular the owner of 454 Churchill Avenue presented her concerns about the difficulty in not being able to manoeuvre her car in and out of their driveway. The driveway to 454 Churchill Avenue branches off the shared access.

4.5. In 2012/13, in response to the resident’s request, City design officers undertook extensive investigation and design work to determine whether it would be possible and practicable to change the gradient of the shared access through reconstruction and thus improve vehicular access to 454 Churchill Avenue.

This work included a field survey, development of a 3D surface model and use of specialised 3D design software to model vehicles undertaking driveway manoeuvres.

The conclusions from this exhaustive design work found it was not feasible to undertake any significant level modifications to the existing shared access due to the fixed level constraints at the top and bottom of the shared access

4.6. It was concluded that the vehicle manoeuvring problems experienced by the owner of 454 Churchill Avenue were primarily caused by a combination of steep longitudinal gradient on the shared access road, the excessive cross fall on the shared access and the sharp change in gradient (no grade transition) between the driveway to 454 Churchill Avenue and the shared access. Moreover in wet or icy conditions the steep shared access is more hazardous for both vehicles and pedestrians.

4.6.1. The City’s design investigation work in 2012/13 was submitted for independent peer design review, undertaken by a local engineering consultant. The review also concluded that reconstruction of the shared access was not possible or practicable within the fixed level constraints at the top and bottom of the road.

4.7. Following the work undertaken in 2012/13 it was concluded that some improvements to the shared access may be achieved through implementing the following minor works:

4.7.1. Installation of a skid/slip resistant surface on the shared access;

4.7.2. Construction of a small (~16m²) area of concrete hardstand within the road reservation opposite the driveways to 454 and 456 Churchill Avenue to provide extra turning/manoeuvring area for vehicles at the top of the shared access; and

4.7.3. Installation of traffic markers (flexible bollards) near the driveway entrance to 454 Churchill Avenue to assist drivers when manoeuvring in and out of this driveway.

4.8. Regretfully the works were not undertaken and in early 2017, new owners moved into the property at 462 Churchill Avenue who were not party to the previous consultation and design work that had occurred in 2012/13.

4.9. The new owners were advised by City Officers of the proposed works to be undertaken on the shared access, however they conveyed their concerns and dissatisfaction with the current proposal for improvements to the shared access, and in particular the construction of the hardstand area within the road reservation to provide additional manoeuvring space.

4.10. The new owners of 462 Churchill Avenue engaged local consulting engineers Pitt & Sherry to investigate alternative proposals with various options subsequently proposed to the City’s Officers.

4.11. The first two options proposed by owners of 462 Churchill Avenue were investigated further by the City’s Officers and were determined to be unaffordable as they were in excess of $100,000.

Further, the neighbouring properties were not supportive of these options.

4.12. In early 2019, the City’s Officers entered into another round of consultation with the neighbouring properties as there were some concerns that some of the neighbours may not have been thoroughly consulted.

4.12.1. Noting this, and recognising the divergent views, the City engaged an independent mediator who undertook numerous meetings over recent months with affected stakeholders and officer in an attempt to reach a mutually feasible and agreeable outcome.

4.13. This time the owner of 454 Churchill Avenue raised concerns that the 2012/13 proposal may not resolve their driveway issue.

4.14. From this discussion, the City engaged a local engineering consultant GHD to undertake another investigation whom recommended that the following additional work be carried out to improve the driveway access into 454 Churchill Avenue:

4.14.1. Installation of a small 200mm high retaining structure at the edge of driveway and minor regrading of the driveway entrance to 454 Churchill Avenue to provide some improvement to the cross fall of the driveway.

4.15. In October 2019, after an extensive consultation process and detailed design investigation works, the City’s Officers provided the City’s proposal to all the neighbours for consultation.

This proposal is shown below:

4.16. Three of the four property owners have now provided written approval in support of the proposal by the City’s Officers.

4.17. A full copy of submissions is provided under separate cover due to the requirement to comply with the Personal Information Protection Act 2004 and the request by the owners of 462 Churchill Avenue that their submission be treated as confidential.

4.18. The owners of 462 Churchill Avenue however hold ongoing concerns with the City’s proposal and have again engaged Pitt & Sherry to undertake a redesign of the works.

4.19. The latest option proposed by the owners of 462 Churchill Avenue, as shown below, involves:

4.19.1. The relocation of their existing driveway to allow the installation of a gate and fence over the public highway and the use of the extended hardstand area as part of their driveway. This proposal is shown below;

4.19.2. Private infrastructure (fence and sliding gate) to be located on public highway. It is noted that this aspect of the proposal would require the issue of occupation license, and alienation of the Council’s road reserve land to achieve such; and

4.19.3. Owner contribution of $5,000 to this proposal.

4.20. One of the major concerns of 462 Churchill Avenue is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their children, therefore the request for installation of a fence and gate in their backyard.

This is shown in the alternative plan above.

4.21. The extension of the proposed hard stand area (as proposed) would also reduce the risk of vehicle manoeuvring into the backyard.

This area would provide a safe area for vehicles to turn at the top access road which is not available at present.

4.22. City Officers do not support the alternative proposal due to:

4.22.1. Further alienation of the public highway due to the limited space available at the top of the driveway to allow for safe manoeuvring space for vehicles.

4.22.2. The proposed driveway location is currently public space used by adjoining properties for placing their bins for collection. Converting this area to a driveway will prevent any resident from placing their bins at this location. An alternative location for placement of bins will be Churchill Avenue. Majority of the residents have expressed their objection to this.

4.23. The recent alternative proposal as presented by the owners of 462 Churchill Avenue was also distributed to the residents of 454, 456 and 458-460 Churchill Avenue for their perusal and feedback.

There was no support from any of the other three residents towards the alternative proposal.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The City’s Officers have undertaken investigation regarding a suitable surface treatment that could be applied to the concrete surface on the shared access to improve the skid/slip resistance of the surface.

It was concluded that a calcined bauxite treatment offers the best solution in this regard. This investigation work included some independent engineering review/advice on the proposed product.

5.2. It is proposed that the City proceed with undertaking the installation of the skid resistance surface treatment in conjunction with the other minor works as outlined in the recommendation of the report.

5.2.1. It is noted that the skid resistance treatment and the other minor hardstand works etc. have been scoped and are estimated to cost:

5.2.1.1. $30,000 for the skid resistance treatment.

5.2.1.2. $15,000 for the extra hardstand areas and installation of bollards

5.2.1.3. $30,000 for regrading of driveway entrance into 454 Churchill Ave and installation of 200mm high retaining wall.

5.3. Vehicle turning assessment carried out shows that the proposed works will provide some improvement for the vehicle manoeuvring at the top of the shared access road.

5.4. Further detailed design needs to be carried out for the regrading of the driveway entrance into 454 Churchill Avenue. The estimated cost of this is $15,000.

5.5. The City’s recommended option has not received unanimous support from all the residents who use the shared access. Noting this situation City Officers have presented this report to the Council for its consideration and resolution.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The proposal is compatible with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2019-2029:

Strategic Outcome 7.3 Infrastructure and services are planned, managed and maintained to provide community wellbeing.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Adequate funding is available in the current financial year in the Road Strategy and Projects Budget Function (BF 540) to undertake the proposed works.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. There would be a minor impact on future years’ budgets in that replacement of the skid resistance surface is likely to be required approximately on a 10 year cycle, at an estimated cost of $30,000 plus the cost of inflation.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Under the Local Government Highways Act 1982, the Council has a legal obligation to maintain its local highways. Specific reference is made to Part III, Section 21 of the Act which states:

21. General responsibility of corporations

(1) Subject to this Act, the corporation of a municipality is charged with the duty of maintaining the local highways in the municipality that are maintainable by the corporation as shown on its municipal map, and, in any particular case, it shall discharge that duty in such manner as, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it considers practicable and appropriate.

8.2. Under Section 42(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2002, a Council may be liable in negligence for failing to carry out works on a road for which it was responsible, where it had actual knowledge of the facts creating the particular risk the materialisation of which resulted in the harm.

8.3. The owner of 454 Churchill Avenue advised that there has been instances of pedestrian slipping on the steep driveway. Failure to undertake any slip resistant treatment work may result in future medical claim.

8.4. Legal advice obtained suggests that the failure to properly design the driveway to 454 Churchill Avenue is not the responsibility of the Council, however given the significant work undertaken by the City over many years and the resulting expectation created, it is proposed that the City proceed with corrective works.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. Appropriate environmental controls will be put in place by the contractor during the application of the skid resistant product to minimise the risk of over spill or encroachment upon other infrastructure or private properties

10. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

10.1. Extensive consultation has been undertaken over a considerable time with the residents who utilise the shared access and are affected by the proposed works.

11. Delegation

11.1. The matter is delegated to the Council.

As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.

Mao Cheng

Manager Roads and Environmental Engineering

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 17 October 2019

File Reference: F19/133657

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 21

23/10/2019

REPORT TITLE: City of Hobart Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030 - Year 3 (2018/19) Progress Report

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Cleansing & Solid Waste Policy Coordinator

Manager Cleansing and Solid Waste

Director City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to present progress on Year 3 of the implementation of the City of Hobart Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030: a strategy to achieve zero waste to landfill by 2030.

2. Report Summary

2.1. At its meeting of 9 May 2016 the Council resolved that:

“The City of Hobart Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030, be endorsed”

At the conclusion of the third year, implementation of the actions has resulted in 48 actions being adequately addressed (some finalised but remain ongoing), and a further 22 actions nearing completion, as follows:

· 27 Actions are complete with no further significant works required.

· 21 Actions have been addressed and remain ongoing, for the term of the strategy.

· 22 Actions progressing towards completion.

· 21 Actions are yet to have significant works undertaken.

2.2. As at the end of Year 3 (2018/19) the City recorded a waste diversion rate at McRobies Gully Waste Management Centre of 43% of material diverted from landfill through re-use and recycling programs.

2.3. 2018/19 saw a second consecutive year of less than 20,000 tonnes being disposed of to the McRobies Gully Landfill. This demonstrates the City is maintaining the gains in the waste reduction field.

3. Recommendation

That the report outlining the City’s progress in the implementation of the ‘City of Hobart Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030: a strategy to achieve zero waste to landfill by 2030’ be received and noted.

4. Background

4.1. The Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030 (the Strategy) was approved by Council on 9 May 2016.

4.2. In 2018/19, a total of 19,757 tonnes of waste was buried at the McRobies Gully Landfill.

This builds on last financial year’s inaugural result of less than 20,000 tonnes of waste to landfill, and demonstrates that waste avoidance, recovery, and recycling is being sustained in Hobart.

4.3. The waste diversion rate at McRobies Gully Landfill for 2018/19 was 43%.

This waste diversion rate is calculated based on the total of all material handled through kerbside services, at the waste transfer station, and to landfill (a total of just over 40,000 tonnes) then identifying how much material avoided being landfilled.

4.4. Some kerbside waste is delivered to the Southern Waste Solutions site in Derwent Park. While this material did not go into the City’s landfill, the material needs to be included as ‘waste’ when reporting waste diversion rates.

4.5. The breakdown of all materials was as follows:

· Landfilled (total) 23,109 t (57%)
(both McRobies and Southern Waste Solutions sites)

· Recycled 9, 428 t (24%)

· Composted 7,721 t (19%)

4.6. The report to the City Infrastructure Committee (21/11/2018) on the Year 2 progress of the Strategy detailed the following Key Actions to be addressed in 2018/19 as priorities:

· Finalise preparations for the kerbside collection of food waste;

· Reducing single use plastics including water bottles;

· Extending the number of facilities for the recycling of difficult items such as, light globes, batteries, and dental products;

· Establishing recycling facilities for items such as corflute, soft plastics, pallet wrap, solar panels;

· Implementation of the Cleary’s Gates waste minimisation plan;

· Improving events recycling (Council and external);

· Continuing to build the ‘Towards Zero Waste’ brand, and;

· Incorporating recycled products into City design processes and projects;

4.7. Significants works have been undertaken on all but the last of these priorities listed to be progressed in year 3.

Fig 1 - New centralised bin storage facilities at Cleary’s Gates including FOGO

4.8. There have been 70 actions worked on during the first 3 years the of the Strategy’s implementation (up from 55 actions during the first 2 years). Actions have been undertaken across all of the 8 Key Focus Areas, a list of all Actions progressed is included as Attachment A.

4.9. Year 3 of the strategy saw a significant amount of planning, research, lobbying and input into regional and state reviews, education and activations, and a focus on improving waste management and reduction within City operated areas and programs.

4.10. 2018/19 also saw much advocacy and lobbying both by the City and in partnership with the Local Government Association of Tasmania on a range of state-wide priorities, resulting in the State Government’s release of a Draft Waste Action Plan in June 2019. The action plan includes several items the City has been lobbying for, including:

· A Container Deposit Refund Scheme.

· A state wide waste levy.

· Establishment of a state waste management body.

4.11. Other key works undertaken in 2018/19 included:

· Finalising FOGO to a stage where contractual, economic, and environmental factors are all addressed allowing a service to be introduced.

· Salamanca Market waste reduction improvements.

· Development of the Single Use Plastic By-Law Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) required for the Director of Local Government.

· Inclusion of a waste reduction clause in future Council leases.

· Implementation of the Cleary’s Gates waste minimisation plan.

· Refinement of the Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre waste minimisation plan.

· Delivery of additional Recycling Units for hard to recycle items in other (non-City) locations.

· Development of a 3 year public drinking water installation program.

· Pursuit of a Cooperative Research Centre focussing on waste and plastic pollution, with LGAT and UTAS.

· Website upgrades including a resources page with a range of education tools, and a detailed A-Z list identifying reuse, recycling, and disposal options for over 200 items.

· Coordination of a Schools War on Waste forum held at the Hobart Town Hall involving 80 student representatives sharing strategies and experiences in reducing waste.

· Significant engagement with schools, including one on one workshops, assistance with waste audits, and ongoing mentoring from the City’s Waste team.

· Internal workshops for the City’s staff such as bag making and beeswax wraps, recycling info sessions.

· An increased range of community activations, education, and re-use programs (32 in total), including clothing swap meets, home composting workshops, representation at festivals such as AFLOAT, Art from Trash educational display, zero waste cooking classes, workshops with 100 student leaders as a part of a waste conference, a presence at events like the Hobart International Tennis Tournament, and a public information session at local café Sweet Sassafras.

Fig 2 – The City’s Waste Education Officer, Sophia Newman MCs the Schools war on waste Forum in Town Hall

4.12. The City continues to be a leader in the field, and is regularly contacted by other councils (and other organisations) both within Tasmania and interstate, to provide information and advice on developing policy and implementing waste minimisation programs.

4.13. It should also be noted that the City is partnering with other impacted southern Tasmanian Councils in responding to SKM Recycling being placed in administration, ensuring that the collection and sorting of recyclables has been able to continue.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. Implementation of the Strategy is undertaken through the development of an annual plan that identifies priority actions to undertake each year. Action areas for the 2019/2020 implementation plan (Year 4) will include:

· A mattress recycling program.

· Implementation of the FOGO service.

· Implementation of the 3 year drinking water program.

· Involvement and education of businesses in readiness for the single use plastics by-law.

· Tyre recycling programs and litter prevention.

· Further development and refinement of internal operations and waste minimisation (Town Hall, TTIC, etc).

· A regional tender for Recycling processing services.

· A regional tender for a long term organics treatment facility.

· Continuing to build the ‘Towards Zero Waste’ brand.

5.2. The Strategy is due for review after its first 5 years of implementation. When it is reviewed, City Officers will consider emerging issues such as the circular economy for inclusion in the revised strategy.

5.3. The measurement systems used to track performance will also be reviewed at the 5 year stage. At present, the landfill receives waste from a variety of sources external of the Hobart area.

Fig 3 – A Schools waste Audit being undertaken at New Town Primary School

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The implementation of the Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030 is identified in the City’s Strategic Plan.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. A budget of $170,000 has been allocated for the delivery of actions within the Waste Management Strategy, from budget function 240 within the Cleansing and Waste Unit, for 2019/20.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Future financial implications will be formalised during the annual budget estimates processes each year.

8. Environmental Considerations

8.1. The Strategy is delivering environmental benefits across the region from reduced waste to landfill, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced use of natural resources, and informing the community on the importance of waste avoidance and patronage of reuse and recycling programs.

9. Marketing and Media

9.1. There has been significant marketing and media associated with many of the programs implemented as a result of the Waste Management strategy 2015-2030 and its aim of zero waste to landfill by 2030.

10. Delegation

10.1. This matter is delegated to the Committee to receive and note.

Jeff Holmes

Cleansing & Solid Waste Policy Coordinator

David Beard

Manager Cleansing and Solid Waste

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 18 October 2019

File Reference: F19/135120

Attachment a: Progress as at Year 3 (2018/19) ⇩

Item No. 8.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 77

23/10/2019

Memorandum: Lord Mayor

Deputy Lord Mayor

Elected Members

Response to Question Without Notice

Pedestrian Fencing

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

Meeting date: 25 September 2019

Raised by: Lord Mayor Reynolds

Question:

Is the pedestrian fencing on Bathurst Street (in the block between Murray and Elizabeth) still a recommended and widely used traffic treatment for this kind of city street?

Has a risk assessment been done recently about if it puts people parking their cars next to the barrier at risk by having to walk along the road next to traffic in order to access the footpath?

Could there be more contemporary and safer treatment to encourage people to cross Bathurst Street at the lights?

Response:

The installation of fencing to contain pedestrians would still be considered a recommended and widely used traffic treatment on urban streets such as Bathurst Street.

However, it would typically only be used as a treatment of last resort in response to a demonstrated safety issue that could not reasonably be treated in another way. This may be in response to a history of pedestrian crashes, where pedestrians are choosing to cross at what is considered an inappropriate location, or where barriers and fencing are installed to separate outdoor dining area patrons from parking and moving vehicles.

No recent risk assessment has been undertaken at this location. Looking at the site, there is a minimum of 600mm clear setback of the fence from parked vehicles, and a gap is available in the fence at approximately its midpoint to enable pedestrian access between parked cars and the footpath. With 600mm minimum clearance between parked cars and the fence, pedestrians are able to walk between the parked cars and the fence rather than having to walk along the road surface to access the footpath.

A review of the crash history recorded by Tasmania Police and maintained by the Department of State Growth shows that in the period to which we have access to records (from January 2000 to present), there has been one pedestrian crash recorded on Bathurst Street between the traffic signals at Murray Street and the signalised pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of Mathers Place. This crash was recorded in 2017 and involved a pedestrian crossing from the southern (library) side of Bathurst Street towards the north, being struck by a through vehicle on Bathurst Street in the vicinity of the mid‑block pedestrian crossing. This resulted in first aid being administered to the pedestrian at the scene.

The style of the fence used in Bathurst Street could be updated to a more contemporary style but there is unlikely to be any safer treatment available that would be effective in encouraging people to cross Bathurst Street at the signalised pedestrian crossings at either end of the fence structure.

If Council were of the view that the fence was not a desirable treatment, then they could resolve to have it removed.

James McIlhenny

Acting Director City Planning

Date: 17 October 2019

File Reference: F19/129317; 13-1-10

People	We value people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
Teamwork	We collaborate both within the organisation and with external stakeholders drawing on skills and expertise for the benefit of our community.
Focus and Direction	We have clear goals and plans to achieve sustainable social, environmental and economic outcomes for the Hobart community.
Creativity and Innovation	We embrace new approaches and continuously improve to achieve better outcomes for our community.
Accountability	We work to high ethical and professional standards and are accountable for delivering outcomes for our community.